Jharkhand High Court Grants Relief To 'Physics Wallah', Says Authority Must Consider Reply Before Sealing Premises
The Jharkhand High Court has held that where a public authority issues a notice requiring a person to rectify alleged deficiencies and the person submits a response, the authority must consider the reply and pass an appropriate reasoned order before taking coercive action such as sealing the premises.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a petition challenging the sealing of premises at Pranami Heights, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi, where Physics Wallah was operating a coaching institute.
The petitioner, owner of the premises, challenged a notice dated 01.07.2026 issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation alleging five deficiencies and directing their rectification within seven days, failing which the premises would be sealed under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and Jharkhand Building Bye-laws, 2016.
A subsequent notice was issued on 06.07.2026. The petitioner submitted responses on 08.07.2026 and 09.07.2026. However, instead of passing an order on the responses, the municipal authorities sealed the premises on 03.09.2026.
The municipal authorities contended that the responses were evasive and did not address the deficiencies mentioned in the notices and that the notices had already warned that the premises would be sealed if the deficiencies were not rectified.
The High Court, however, noted that the notices had been responded to and that the competent authority was therefore required to consider those responses before taking further action. The Court observed:
“The competent municipal authority was required to pass appropriate order after considering the response so given by the petitioner.”
Emphasising the doctrine of administrative fairness, the Court held:
“The doctrine of administrative fairness requires any public authority to act reasonably and impartially. If the public authority issues a show cause notice to a person calling upon him to do certain act and that person responds to the said notice, it is imperative for that authority to pass appropriate order supported with reasons as why the said reply is not acceptable.”
The Court further explained that a reasoned order is necessary because, without knowing why the response has been rejected, the affected person would have no meaningful opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
The Bench found that, in the present case, the municipal authority had “instead of passing any order, straightway sealed the premise on 3rd September, 2026”, and held that the procedure adopted was “highly improper.”
The Court accordingly granted the petitioner another opportunity to file a detailed response before the competent authority within two weeks. The authority was directed, after considering the response, providing an opportunity of hearing, and conducting an enquiry regarding the premises, to take an informed decision in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, Advocate